kuhaisthebest-v-neffins-msp

Mayflower District Court

#kuhaisthebest-v-neffins-msp

This is the start of #kuhaisthebest-v-neffins-msp channel.

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-03 08:43 p.m.

New Case

kuhaisthebest v. Neffins, MSP

Case Type

Civil

clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:08 p.m.

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-03 08:46 p.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Judge Popplewell.

profile used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-03 08:46 p.m.

Case Modified

@profile

has added @mantisshrimp69 to the case channel.

profile 2025-12-03 08:46 p.m.

Presiding Honourable Judge, @Brenda

Brenda used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-03 08:51 p.m.

Case Modified

@Brenda

has added @kuha to the case channel.

Brenda used

/summon

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-03 08:52 p.m.

:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @actxrz

(edited)

Brenda used

/summon

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-03 08:53 p.m.

:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @m_arselo

(edited)

Brenda 2025-12-03 08:54 p.m.

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED

that Defendant Neffins has five (5) days to file his Answer and/or Motion to Dismiss in response to the above Complaint. Defendant Mayflower State Police has seven (7) days to file its Answer and/or Motion to Dismiss. @mantisshrimp69

@actxrz

@m_arselo

(edited)

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-03 08:55 p.m.

(edited)

Appearance Request

Requester: @actxrz
Party: state
Channel: kuhaisthebest-v-neffins-msp

A Magistrate Judge or higher may approve or deny below.

Status

Request expired.

Approve

Deny

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-03 08:56 p.m.

@actxrz

appears for state (approved by @Brenda).

judicialFLOW pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:08 p.m.

actxrz 2025-12-03 08:56 p.m.

BotjudicialFLOW

Click to see attachment.(edited)

actxrz 2025-12-03 08:56 p.m.

in official capacity only cc; @Brenda

@m_arselo

actxrz 2025-12-03 08:57 p.m.

and quasi

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-03 08:58 p.m.

hello

actxrz 2025-12-03 09:01 p.m.

Case No.: CV-530-25

actxrz 2025-12-03 09:01 p.m.

pls pin

actxrz 2025-12-03 09:01 p.m.

trello is rlly annoying for me

Brenda pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:08 p.m.

actxrz 2025-12-03 09:08 p.m.

Thank you

Brenda used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-04 01:26 a.m.

Case Modified

@Brenda

has added @m_arselo to the case channel.

Brenda

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Neffins has five (5) days to file his Answer and/or Motion to Dismiss in response to the above Complaint. Defendant Mayflower State Police h...(edited)

actxrz 2025-12-06 02:44 p.m.

@Brenda

@mantisshrimp69

are you okay matching neffin's response time with MSP's

actxrz 2025-12-06 02:44 p.m.

just so that i can compile a response into one singular document and submit at the same time

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 02:58 p.m.

if you want them to be in a singular document you're gonna have to do it within the 5 days

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 02:58 p.m.

I'm not consenting to extending neffins' time

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 02:59 p.m.

after how he treated my client

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 02:59 p.m.

Unless brenda overrides me but I would ask him not to

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:00 p.m.

/her

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:03 p.m.

oh but you can approach the defendant without any counsel present..?

actxrz

oh but you can approach the defendant without any counsel present..?

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:06 p.m.

are you referring to this?

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:07 p.m.

I can actually

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:07 p.m.

he was not represented at the time I contacted him, which means my communications with him are governed by bar rule 4.3

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:07 p.m.

I have not breached this rule and thus what I did was completely allowed and ethical

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:08 p.m.

help

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:08 p.m.

yes he is

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:08 p.m.

in fact I am only now finding out you're representing him

actxrz

yes he is

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:08 p.m.

he is what

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:09 p.m.

i meant was

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

when you appeared for this case you appeared on behalf of the state. I have not received any further communications from the state nor the individual defendant as to his own representation and thus I reasonably believed he was not represented

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

again, I am just now finding out you're his lawyer

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

appearance entered the 3rd, i dmed neffins the 3rd asking to rep him in all capacities, consented

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

he consented*

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

RIGHT

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

my apologies actxrz

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

I forgot that I'm omnipresent and omniscient

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

no ur not just finding that out

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:10 p.m.

actxrz

Click to see attachment.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:11 p.m.

what does this mean

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:11 p.m.

you never said "im representing defendant neffins"

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:11 p.m.

what is this argument

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:11 p.m.

LMAO

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:11 p.m.

you appeared for the state

actxrz

appearance entered the 3rd, i dmed neffins the 3rd asking to rep him in all capacities, consented

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:12 p.m.

he responded the 4th saying "sure"

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:12 p.m.

u contacted him the 5th

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:12 p.m.

cool

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:12 p.m.

again I'm not omniscient

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:12 p.m.

you should have contacted the defendant

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:12 p.m.

not

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:12 p.m.

should not have

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:12 p.m.

to my understanding he was not represented

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:13 p.m.

and I could not have known that he was seeing as you appeared for the state and never formally appeared for neffins nor actually indicated to the court in a way that was coherent that you were

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:13 p.m.

im not moving for sanctions man

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:13 p.m.

some how it'll be turned against us

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:13 p.m.

wonderful to hear

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:13 p.m.

a couple statutes will get struck down

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:14 p.m.

maybe ill get held in contempt or smth

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:14 p.m.

idk

actxrz 2025-12-06 03:14 p.m.

pls never contact the defendant again without me being present. thank u

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:15 p.m.

duly noted

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-06 03:15 p.m.

now that I know he is represented

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-07 03:21 a.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Chambers of Magistrate RobertSabbatini.

profile 2025-12-07 03:21 a.m.

Re Assigned @robert

profile used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-07 03:24 a.m.

Case Modified

@profile

has added @mantisshrimp69 to the case channel.

robert 2025-12-07 03:27 a.m.

Previous Honorable District Judge Brenda's order stands

profile used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-07 04:40 a.m.

Case Modified

@profile

has added @kuha to the case channel.

robert used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-07 07:10 a.m.

Case Modified

@robert

has added @mantisshrimp69 to the case channel.

robert used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-07 07:10 a.m.

Case Modified

@robert

has added @actxrz to the case channel.

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-08 07:10 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

please upload attachments for kuhaisthebest v. Neffins, MSP now. You can send multiple messages. Type done when finished.

Allowed types:

application/pdf, image/jpeg, image/png, image/webp, text/plain

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:10 p.m.

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-08 07:10 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

accepted 1 file(s). (Total: 1/5)

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:10 p.m.

done

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-08 07:10 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

You can upload 4 more — or type done.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:10 p.m.

done

User

Message could not be loaded.

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-08 07:10 p.m.

Uploaded 1/1 file(s).

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-08 07:11 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SdjtLZtFpCuZTqvKExAPlYfFlHPuUmxx/view?usp=sharing

@Brenda

Our motion for default judgment your honor

Pl.'s Mot. for Default J. Against Def. Neffins.pdf

robert 2025-12-10 12:01 a.m.

Upon review of Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendant Neffins, filed December 8th, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Neffins shall have forty eight (48) hours from the entry of this Order to file a response to the motion and/or an Answer to the Complaint. Failure to respond may result in the entry of default. SO ORDERED. (Signed /s/ Robert Sabbatini, Magistrate Judge)

-# cc: @mantisshrimp69

@actxrz

@m_arselo

robert used

/add

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-10 12:01 a.m.

Case Modified

@robert

has added @m_arselo to the case channel.

robert 2025-12-10 12:21 a.m.

Ex Parte communication

robert 2025-12-10 12:27 a.m.

m_arselo 2025-12-10 12:38 a.m.

I had no chance to respond as I was unable to send messages.

m_arselo

I had no chance to respond as I was unable to send messages.

robert 2025-12-10 12:40 a.m.

Did you attempt to reach out to anyone regarding this?

m_arselo 2025-12-10 12:40 a.m.

Yeah

robert 2025-12-10 12:42 a.m.

Please show me @m_arselo

m_arselo 2025-12-10 12:42 a.m.

https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1274202189149114403/1447836486480429179

m_arselo 2025-12-10 12:43 a.m.

This is the second time I haven't been moved over to the channel after it was assigned to someone else

robert 2025-12-10 12:46 a.m.

I see.

robert 2025-12-10 12:46 a.m.

@mantisshrimp69

My order stands then

robert 2025-12-10 12:47 a.m.

@m_arselo

you have 48 hours

m_arselo 2025-12-10 12:47 a.m.

Thank you

robert

I see.

kuha 2025-12-10 06:29 a.m.

I whould want to point out that he sent that message 6hours after my lawyer sent our one.

kuha

I whould want to point out that he sent that message 6hours after my lawyer sent our one.

robert 2025-12-10 08:22 a.m.

who is you now

robert 2025-12-10 08:22 a.m.

oh your the plaintiff

robert 2025-12-10 08:22 a.m.

apologies

robert 2025-12-10 08:22 a.m.

i just woke up from a nap

kuha

I whould want to point out that he sent that message 6hours after my lawyer sent our one.

robert 2025-12-10 08:22 a.m.

You appear to be correct

robert

@mantisshrimp69 My order stands then

robert 2025-12-10 08:22 a.m.

i strike this

robert

@m_arselo you have 48 hours

robert 2025-12-10 08:22 a.m.

and strike this

robert 2025-12-10 08:22 a.m.

default will be entered shortly

m_arselo 2025-12-10 09:42 a.m.

I would like to know how that was striked

m_arselo

I would like to know how that was striked

robert 2025-12-10 10:07 a.m.

because you’re in default, you made no effort to contact the Court only until after that motion was filed you did

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:17 a.m.

So its my fault for getting ready for work irl?

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:18 a.m.

His document was posted at 2am

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:23 a.m.

Of course the earliest I can respond is when im going to work

m_arselo

So its my fault for getting ready for work irl?

robert 2025-12-10 10:38 a.m.

You had 5 days you could have messaged the Court within the 5 days

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:39 a.m.

Did I not message within 5 day

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:39 a.m.

robert 2025-12-10 10:40 a.m.

You were summoned on the 03/12/2025 @m_arselo

robert 2025-12-10 10:41 a.m.

5 days would be 7/12/2025

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:41 a.m.

And appeared by pinging brenda.

robert 2025-12-10 10:41 a.m.

Where did you ping brenda

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:41 a.m.

Then the case had whatever happen to it and I was again the only one who wasn't transferred over correctly

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:41 a.m.

https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1274202189149114403/1446020781019631747

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:43 a.m.

That felt on purpose

robert 2025-12-10 10:43 a.m.

So you got added to the case channel on the 04/12/2025 you didn’t say anything about you filing anything

robert 2025-12-10 10:45 a.m.

On the 07/12/2025 you didn’t file anything either

robert 2025-12-10 10:45 a.m.

Do you have your answer or not @m_arselo

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:45 a.m.

A moment

robert 2025-12-10 10:45 a.m.

It’s a yes or no

m_arselo

A moment

robert 2025-12-10 10:46 a.m.

hello yes or no

robert

So you got added to the case channel on the 04/12/2025 you didn’t say anything about you filing anything

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:46 a.m.

Cause I believed the person representing me would infact represent me

robert 2025-12-10 10:46 a.m.

Who is representing you?

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:46 a.m.

actxrz

robert 2025-12-10 10:47 a.m.

Do you have an answer to this complaint?

actxrz

in official capacity only cc; @Brenda

@m_arselo

kuha 2025-12-10 10:47 a.m.

robert 2025-12-10 10:47 a.m.

Just a yes or no

kuha

robert 2025-12-10 10:47 a.m.

Your comments are not needed at this time

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:47 a.m.

How am I supposed to have one when the person infact representing me failed to do so

robert 2025-12-10 10:48 a.m.

He is representing you in official capacity, he has 7 days to file a response you have 5 days in your individual capacity

Brenda

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Neffins has five (5) days to file his Answer and/or Motion to Dismiss in response to the above Complaint. Defendant Mayflower State Police h...(edited)

robert 2025-12-10 10:48 a.m.

As seen in this order

robert 2025-12-10 10:49 a.m.

Your excuses seem poor considering the time frame between your messages and you still not having a response

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:49 a.m.

I do not have one then, as it is impossible to find a lawyer.

robert 2025-12-10 10:49 a.m.

Have you made any effort to?

robert 2025-12-10 10:49 a.m.

legal-advertisements

m_arselo 2025-12-10 10:49 a.m.

Yes, multiple times between multiple people

robert 2025-12-10 10:50 a.m.

Then you should have answered it pro se

robert 2025-12-10 10:50 a.m.

Default will be entered

robert 2025-12-10 10:50 a.m.

You can set aside default with a show cause

robert

You can set aside default with a show cause

robert 2025-12-10 10:51 a.m.

good*

m_arselo 2025-12-10 02:55 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aqCsxEJvwD-j22YZ4X3W_Sx5PLizRvGD/view?usp=sharing

@robert

Motion to set aside default with show cause

CV-530-25_SetAsideDefault (2).pdf

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 03:36 p.m.

@robert

I see an issue with this motion

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 03:36 p.m.

It’s not sworn and (in my opinion) the evidence is not satisfactory

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 03:37 p.m.

Once a sworn statement is sent here, Plaintiff will not contest to def Neffins being allotted additional time

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 04:45 p.m.

@robert

provided that actxrz' conduct be reported to the bar for gross neglect

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 04:45 p.m.

of course

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:40 p.m.

HELP

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:41 p.m.

no one can help you now, actxrz.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:41 p.m.

https://tenor.com/view/patrick-bateman-sigma-joker-lightning-god-patrick-bateman-sigma-edit-gif-11768805784532291762

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:41 p.m.

Sry let me email my teachers to let them know

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:42 p.m.

i will need to be excused from exams

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:42 p.m.

bc my clark county bar license is on the line

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:42 p.m.

Myb iran doesnt have standardized testing or any form of education system(edited)

actxrz

i will need to be excused from exams

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:43 p.m.

YOU'RE RIGHT

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:43 p.m.

It too takes me several days to write an answer to a 2 page civil complaint. I had to quit school just to write one

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:43 p.m.

(god forbid the complaint be three pages, I will never finish an answer)

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:44 p.m.

+ 5 appellate cases + 2 judicial complaints + an mtd + responses to various other civil complaints(edited)

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:44 p.m.

cool so then dont take this case

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:44 p.m.

u accepted the responsibility its on you

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:44 p.m.

if you know youre busy bc DOJ makes hiring decisions based on ego instead of merit and you're swamped then don't commit to things you can't finish

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:44 p.m.

that as an attorney is gross neglect

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:45 p.m.

pls see rule 1 of the honorable robert's chammbers

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:45 p.m.

no cross talk is permitted

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:45 p.m.

pls stop speaking to me

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:45 p.m.

thank u

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:45 p.m.

your honor

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:45 p.m.

I am simply rebutting act's arguments

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:46 p.m.

in truth my comments are directed at you, not him

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:46 p.m.

despite my framing

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:47 p.m.

@profile

@honkhonk

@profile

who is supervising judge on this

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:47 p.m.

his honor robertsabbatini does not require a supervising judge

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:48 p.m.

he is an independent judge of the judiciary and can render decisions of law and fact without the need for someone to approve those decisions

actxrz 2025-12-10 05:48 p.m.

he's a magistrate

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:48 p.m.

yes

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:49 p.m.

he is an independent judge of the judiciary and can render decisions of law and fact without the need for someone to approve those decisions

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 05:49 p.m.

a magistrate judge is a type of judge hence why I called him a judge

robert

Default will be entered

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:06 p.m.

your honor, defendants object to the order on the ground that it exceeds the authority granted to magistrates under 5 M.S.C. 1 §§ 2202 and 2203. a magistrate cannot initiate or threaten the entry of default because rule 37 assigns that authority only to the clerk or to a district judge.

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:07 p.m.

further, rule 37 expressly identifies only two actors who may enter default

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:07 p.m.

yo npz, im talking to the magistrate

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:07 p.m.

not you

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:07 p.m.

please do not cross talk

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:07 p.m.

thank you

actxrz

further, rule 37 expressly identifies only two actors who may enter default

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:09 p.m.

the clerk and the court (meaning a judge)

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:10 p.m.

if the legislature intended to authorize magistrates to enter default, it would have said so

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:12 p.m.

if you'd like, we are willing to submit a full written objection

actxrz

your honor, defendants object to the order on the ground that it exceeds the authority granted to magistrates under 5 M.S.C. 1 §§ 2202 and 2203. a magistrate cannot initiate or thr...

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:12 p.m.

5 M.S.C. 1 § 2202 (doesn't give any restrictions to magistrates but rather says that they have general judicial authority, and lists non-exclusively things they can do)
5 M.S.C. 1 § 2203 (gives restrictions to magistrates only when they are assigned to a case for pretrial purposes by a regular judge—when they are presiding on a case on their own, as is the case because you haven't been assigned to this by a specific judge for pretrial purposes, you can take the actions explained there anyway. other than that, this statute lists no regulations on magistrate authority besides that magistrates can't hear economically, constitutionally, or politically significant cases, or otherwise criminal cases wherein the state seeks the death penalty)

Rule 37(b) says that the court, i.e., the presiding judge (whether he be a magistrate or a district judge) may enter default. since you are presiding over this action, you are here "the court" and can enter default

Clearly, your honor, these statutes and rule 37 do not apply. You are free to enter default and these arguments that plaintiff is doing are evidently fallacious

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:13 p.m.

anybody can cite random statutes and rules that have no connection but that does not a meritorious argument make

actxrz

@profile

@honkhonk

@profile who is supervising judge on this

profile 2025-12-10 06:15 p.m.

Albert

actxrz

if the legislature intended to authorize magistrates to enter default, it would have said so

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:16 p.m.

the legislature said that magistrates have general judicial authority, and never said they can't enter default when presiding over a case on their own. so logically, under that judicial authority, they can enter default

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:16 p.m.

YOUR HONOR.

profile

Albert

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:17 p.m.

ok thank you

mantisshrimp69

5 M.S.C. 1 § 2202 (doesn't give any restrictions to magistrates but rather says that they have general judicial authority, and lists non-exclusively things they can do) 5 M.S.C...

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:27 p.m.

ok this argument is fundamentally flawed. it ignores the delegated and limited nature of a magistrate's authority under subchapter 2. while rule 37(b) permits "the court" to enter a default, 5 M.S.C. 1 § 2203 specifies that a magistrate's power over dispositive matters (the entry of default leading to a final judgment) is restricted to submitting "proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition" to a district judge. magistrates do not possess the inherent, co-equal authority to be considered "the court" for entering final or dispositive orders unless specifically designated to determine a non-excepted matter

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:27 p.m.

your honor

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:30 p.m.

I already explained how § 2203 does not apply so I don't know why he keeps citing it your honor
That's only for when 1. a DISTRICT JUDGE is presiding over a case, and 2. that district judge APPOINTS A MAGISTRATE to preside exclusively over pretrial matters. here, you are presiding yourself—no one but you is involved in this case

profile

Albert

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:30 p.m.

https://tenor.com/view/patrick-star-dumb-empty-head-moron-spongebob-gif-11976325420190756370

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:30 p.m.

literally just read the first section of that part, § 2203.1, and you understand exactly what that entire part is about

actxrz

https://tenor.com/view/patrick-star-dumb-empty-head-moron-spongebob-gif-11976325420190756370

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

uh no

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

albert never appointed anybody

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

haha, i'd thought i'd share that funny gif.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

this is under robert's docket

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

oh god

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

ok i'm not entertaining you

profile 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

oh on this case no one

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

respectfully whether the clerk says that albert is a supervising judge does not matter

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

he is not supervising

profile 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

robert is under albert de

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

for that to happen albert needs to appoint

profile

robert is under albert de

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

you're getting the statutory interpretation wrong

profile 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

doe

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

a magistrate judge is an independent member of the judiciary

profile 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

im just- gonna stop talking..

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:31 p.m.

they arent employed by one district judge or supervised in all cases

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:32 p.m.

they certainly aren't automatically under supervision in every case automatically

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:32 p.m.

that's only for when a judge does not want to do his own case and he delegates it to a magistrate. but magistrates have authority outside of that

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:33 p.m.

I dont know where we got this idea that magistrates are the subordinate of one judge and that judge is a supervisor

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:33 p.m.

they're not, magistrate judges are given judicial authority and in their own cases they can rule however they want

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:36 p.m.

If you want to make it seem as if magistrates cannot operate outside the appointment and supervision of a district judge, then that would necessarily imply (under a pretty obvious § 2203.1 interpretation) that magistrates can ONLY be assigned to pretrial matters, because that's the only time when they can be appointed to hear a case on behalf of a district judge

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:36 p.m.

if that's your interpretation I actually have no issue with it

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:37 p.m.

the statute either 1. says that magistrates can rule on their own cases, but have restrictions when specifically appointed for pretrial matters by a supervising judge, OR 2. says that magistrates are always subordinate to a district judge and can therefore ONLY hear pretrial matters on their behalf, having no other authority
Either of these interpretations would be reasonable in my mind, but no other interpretation is actually logical

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:40 p.m.

@robert

I would love to submit paper briefs on this

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:40 p.m.

though to me the implications are pretty obvious

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:42 p.m.

your honor, the theory that a magistrate judge is "presiding on a case on their own" and has inherent, independent authority to enter default is quite literally contradicted both by the plain text of 5 M.S.C. 1 § 2203 (requiring designation and recommendation for dispositive matters) and by the established practice in the federal courts on which this statute is modeled. under the Federal Magistrates Act (28 U.S.C. § 636) and the rule 72 of the federal rules of civil procedure, a magistrate judge can only "hear and determine" (rule definitively on) non-dispositive pretrial matters.

the entry of a default judgment is a dispositive action, as it finally adjudicates liability; therefore, the magistrate's authority is limited to issuing a Report and Recommendation to the district judge, who must then make the final, de novo determination, confirming that the power to act as "the court" in this context resides with the district judge.

mantisshrimp69

@robert I would love to submit paper briefs on this

actxrz 2025-12-10 06:43 p.m.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:53 p.m.

Federal courts don’t work like this

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:53 p.m.

We have a different judicial framework and it’s frankly just stupid to compare the two

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:56 p.m.

Magistrates here are nominated and confirmed, they’re full judicial officers. In the federal courts they are chosen by the very district judges to help with preliminary matters they have no interest in; a federal magistrate’s authority derives directly and solely from his district judge. Here, magistrates are actually nominated and confirmed; they have individual judge powers; they can render judgment irrespective of other judges’ opinions. The only difference in our system between a district judge and a magistrate is that magistrates are actually renewed by the senate every term and have some few restrictions (like not presiding on politically or constitutionally significant cases)

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:56 p.m.

Like why is act just making stuff up

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:56 p.m.

There is NO conclusion to be drawn from federal magistrates’ authority to apply to our own case. We are fundamentally different

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 06:57 p.m.

I would like to brief on this issue

robert 2025-12-10 07:06 p.m.

nice

robert 2025-12-10 07:06 p.m.

great job guys

robert 2025-12-10 07:06 p.m.

really great stuff

robert 2025-12-10 07:06 p.m.

imma read this later

robert

imma read this later

actxrz 2025-12-10 07:26 p.m.

Summary of the Discussion

A group of users is arguing in a Discord server about whether a magistrate judge (“His Honor Robertsabbatini”) has the authority to enter default in a civil case under “5 M.S.C. 1 §§ 2202 and 2203” and Rule 37.

Two opposing legal theories emerge:

Position 1 — actxrz

Claim: A magistrate cannot enter default because a default (or default judgment) is a dispositive action, and magistrates only have limited, delegated authority.

Key arguments:

§ 2203 restricts magistrates’ power in dispositive matters.

When a dispositive issue arises, a magistrate may only make proposed findings and a recommendation to a district judge, who must issue the final decision.

Rule 37(b) allows “the court” to enter default, but “the court” means a district judge—not a magistrate—unless the magistrate has been properly designated.

The structure is analogous to federal magistrate judges, who:

can hear nondispositive matters

but can only recommend rulings on dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and FRCP 72.

Therefore, a magistrate cannot threaten or initiate entry of default without district judge oversight.

Position 2 — npz_v

Claim: The magistrate can enter default because magistrates in this system have independent judicial authority, unlike U.S. federal magistrates.

Key arguments:

§ 2202 grants magistrates general judicial authority and does not restrict default entry.

§ 2203 applies only when a district judge assigns a magistrate to pretrial matters.
In this case, no such assignment exists—the magistrate is presiding directly—so the § 2203 limitations do not apply.

A magistrate is an independent judicial officer, not automatically subordinate to any one district judge.

The assertion that magistrates can act only with supervision would imply that magistrates can handle only pretrial matters, which contradicts their confirmed judicial role.

The comparison to U.S. federal magistrates is invalid because the judicial structure here is different: magistrates in this system are confirmed judges with their own authority, not assistants delegated by a district judge.

Core Issue

The disagreement hinges on how to interpret § 2203, specifically:

Does § 2203:

Always limit magistrates in dispositive matters, requiring them to issue recommendations only?
(actxrz)
or

Only limit magistrates when they have been assigned to a case by a district judge for pretrial purposes?
(npz_v)

Depending on that interpretation, the magistrate either can or cannot enter default as “the court” under Rule 37.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:29 p.m.

That's inaccurate

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:29 p.m.

hence why I would like to brief on this issue

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:29 p.m.

@robert

robert 2025-12-10 07:42 p.m.

KUHAISTHEBEST v. NEFFINS, et al. Case No. CV-530-25

ORDER FOR BRIEFING ON JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION

Defence counsel has raised an objection to the Court's authority to enter default, arguing that 5 M.S.C. 1 §§ 2202 and 2203 limit a magistrate's power to dispositive matters. Plaintiff's counsel has opposed, arguing the Court possesses independent judicial authority under § 2202.1. The Court finds this issue appropriate for formal briefing before ruling on the pending motion for default judgment.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Defendant shall file a brief in support of his jurisdictional objection within forty eight (48) hours of this Order. Second, Plaintiff shall file a response brief within forty eight (48) hours of Defendant's filing, the briefs shall address whether a magistrate judge presiding over a case on their own docket has authority under 5 M.S.C. 1 § 2202.1 to enter default pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 37(b), or whether such authority is limited by § 2203.

The motion for default judgment is held in abeyance pending resolution of this jurisdictional question. SO ORDERED.( Signed, /s/ Robert Sabbatini, Magistrate Judge, Mayflower District Court)

-# > cc: @mantisshrimp69

@actxrz

robert pinned a message to this channel.2026-01-18 03:08 p.m.

robert used

/timer

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-10 07:42 p.m.

Timer

Friday, December 12, 2025 at 7:42 p.m.

(1 month ago)

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:42 p.m.

thanks

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:42 p.m.

also

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:50 p.m.

@robert

I have a motion here as well

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 07:50 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

please upload attachments for kuhaisthebest v. Neffins, MSP now. You can send multiple messages. Type done when finished.

Allowed types:

application/pdf, image/jpeg, image/png, image/webp, text/plain

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:50 p.m.

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 07:50 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

accepted 1 file(s). (Total: 1/5)

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 07:50 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

You can upload 4 more — or type done.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:50 p.m.

done

User

Message could not be loaded.

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 07:51 p.m.

Uploaded 1/1 file(s).

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 07:51 p.m.

since MSP has now defaulted as well

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

@robert

I stipulate to voluntary dismissal of this action with prejudice

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

/s/ npz_v

robert 2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

Your client wants that?

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

please upload attachments for kuhaisthebest v. Neffins, MSP now. You can send multiple messages. Type done when finished.

Allowed types:

application/pdf, image/jpeg, image/png, image/webp, text/plain

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sgyIWYtdE9D0SLyI83G3I_OyPcq6QGcT/view?usp=sharing

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

No attachments in that message. Upload file(s) or type done to finish.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

accepted 1 file(s). (Total: 1/5)

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

@mantisshrimp69

You can upload 4 more — or type done.

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:51 p.m.

done

User

Message could not be loaded.

judicialFLOW Bot2025-12-10 08:52 p.m.

Uploaded 1/1 file(s).

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:52 p.m.

@robert

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sgyIWYtdE9D0SLyI83G3I_OyPcq6QGcT/view?usp=sharing

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:52 p.m.

yes he wants it

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:52 p.m.

thank you

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:52 p.m.

btw the court retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing this agreement

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:52 p.m.

so dont close the channel yet pls

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-10 08:52 p.m.

(see npz_v v. mayflower senate, et al)

robert 2025-12-11 12:11 a.m.

The parties having reached a settlement and Plaintiff having stipulated to voluntary dismissal with prejudice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement dated December 10th, 2025. SO ORDERED.(Signed, /s/ Robert Sabbatini, Magistrate Judge)(edited)

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-11 12:45 a.m.

I have reveivec

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-11 12:45 a.m.

Money

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-11 12:45 a.m.

Can close

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-11 12:45 a.m.

@robert

mantisshrimp69 2025-12-11 12:46 a.m.

@profile

User

Message could not be loaded.

robert 2025-12-11 04:00 a.m.

@Prothonotary's Office

Archive, please

profile used

/transcript

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-15 09:05 a.m.

Creating transcript..

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-15 09:05 a.m.

https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1450126622866014339 Successfully created transcript.

clerkFlow Bot2025-12-15 09:05 a.m.

Channel Permissions Synced

Permissions have been synced to Volume XIV.

Exported 294 messages